Anne Norton

First, the good: I went to the University of Chicago for graduate school. Not only that, I went to the department of that school that still does the most to protect Strauss's legacy. Did I take classes with Straussians? No, I did not. But I have Straussian friends, and learned something of their beliefs. So, Norton's book made me nostalgic for Chicago, even though by the time I was there the Hegelians and, broadly speaking, modernists, far outnumbered the Straussians.

Now, that aside, this book is awful. It was published in 2004--I remember it coming out--and unfortunately bears the marks of the Bush presidency, a period in which soi-disant liberal intellectuals abandoned their self-respect entirely and produced endless polemics with almost no variation in tone, theme or importance (i.e., none). This book is one of those polemics, with a very minimal effort to link the turpitude of the Bush administration and neoconservativism in general to misunderstandings of Strauss's work.

The problem, dear reader, is that Norton was a Straussian, and feels the urge to defend the Meister's work even while she excoriates the pupils. This was disappointing: what I really wanted was a work by a Straussian-turned-rational-human-being, who could both explain the lure of Strauss's doctrines (i.e., they provide certainty in a period of uncertainty; they enable the student to take part in the aristocracy without being undemocratic) and then show that they are more or less based on a bad reading of medieval political theory. Norton did none of this. Instead, she vaguely explained two of Strauss's books, without admitting the ludicrous nature of their arguments, then went on to skewer the easily-skewered works of later Straussians. Nobody needs help laughing at Closing of the American Mind. Some do need help understanding why Natural Law is not a sound basis for intellectual inquiry.

Anyway, this book can be summed up quite simply. Norton describes a dinner party at which a sociologist tells her that the world is divided between the followers of Strauss and the followers of Sayyid Qutb. Norton then writes a chapter about how neocons are just like Islamic terrorists, because they, you know, believe stuff.

American liberals spent the '60s complaining about Kissinger's realism, and they were right to do so: it's cynical to act geopolitically only when you have a clear interest in doing so. But once you've undermined realism, you can't turn around and argue against neoconservatism because the Bush administration believed that saving the world was a good thing. IT IS A GOOD THING. The problem wasn't that they wanted to save the world. The problem was that they wanted to save it for capitalism.

But the liberal academy is so morally bankrupt that it can only criticize politicians for not following the right procedures while they rape and destroy the rest of the world.

Golf claps ensue.… (meer)

I ordered this book after watching a TV documentary about Strauss and how his ideas have been used by the Neo-Cons. While the documentary was extremely interesting and relevant, this book left me disappointed. The author does not do a very good job of linking the teachings of Strauss and how they have been (mis)used by Straussians. This is despite the book's flyleaf claiming 'This provocative book examines Strauss's ideas and the ways in which they have been appropriated,or misappropriated, by senior policymakers.'
Many of the points the author makes left me thinking 'So what?' or 'well, that's stating the obvious.' Much of it is a 'when I was a student in Chicago...' which doesn't really have any relevance. Rather, it is as though some disjointed ideas and obvious points have been packaged into a book. I am sure there are better explorations of the Strauss/Straussian phenomenon out there.… (meer)